Study: Kerry has not capitalized on Bush's bad press

[papau]

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/kerry/articles/2004/07/12/study_kerry_has_not_capitalized_on_bushs_bad_press/

Study: Kerry has not capitalized on Bush's bad press
By Mark Jurkowitz, Globe Staff | July 12, 2004

Media coverage of President Bush has been largely unflattering this campaign season, but there's little indication the bad press has affected the country's view of him, according to a survey being released today.

The findings may be more ominous for the Democratic challenger, John Kerry, who -- at least until last week's selection of John Edwards as his running mate -- was largely missing from national campaign coverage and had left an "indistinct" impression on voters with one notable exception. The study found that the public says he is significantly more likely to "flip-flop" on the issues than Bush.

"Neither of these guys is in control of their message, but it's probably not hurting Bush as much," said Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism. "Bush has suffered a huge onslaught of news coverage, but it's generally not having any impact on people's perceptions. Meanwhile, Kerry has not made much of an impression because he's been absent. . . . The news is probably, on balance, worse for Kerry."<snip>

In explaining why the public seems not to be influenced by the media's portrayal of Bush this time around, Rosenstiel chalked it up to "familiarity. The more people know about someone, the less impact new information has."

For the more unfamiliar candidate, Rosenstiel added, the survey is "not good news." With Kerry generating considerably less media attention than Bush during the first part of the campaign, the study concluded that citizens had an "indistinct" impression of him and that "the only theme that more of the public saw as best describing Kerry rather than Bush was that he was a flip flopper."

[GR]

1. There Is A Fundamental Flaw Underlying This Analysis...

People have made up their minds that they don't want Bush but they haven't yet decided, certainly to vote for Kerry. They will.

The fundamentals underlying this election are that the undecided's break heavily for the challenger, rather than the incumbent.

Bush has all the votes he's going to get and it's ridiculous to blame Kerry because everyone hasn't already committed to vote for him.

This, in my opinion, is mirroring the 1980 election which showed close, until the end, when all the undecideds broke for Reagan, finally deciding that he was safe to elect. Of course they were wrong, but that was the mechanics of the election.

[papau]

2. I believe - and hope - you are correct and that Bush will max out at 46%

:-)

[AndyTiedye]

5. 46% is Enough For Bush* to Win

> I believe - and hope - you are correct and that Bush will max out at 46%

I hope not! With 46% Bush* wins easily, because Nader is in the race,
and Bush* has a 7% advantage in the Electoral College.

Adding Diebold and ES&S into the mix, Bush* could conceivably "win"
with under 40% of the vote, and the media would explain it away
as a surge of angry gay-haters coming out of the woodwork for Bush*.

With the cooperation of the major polling organizations, Bush* could
even be (s)elected by JUST the 29% hardcore Fundie base.

[niceypoo]

3. Kerry just sits there

and does nothing. Dean would be mopping the floor with Bush right aabout now. Hopefully Edwards can wake him up.

[elfwitch]

4. I agree with you...

It is not an "attack" to plainly and simply point out that *s record on EVERYTHING is dismal at best. It is not an "attack" to plainly and simply point out that the * Administration is using scare tactics and misdirection to divert attention from the real problems. It is not an "attack" to plainly and simply point out that * ruins everything he comes in to contact with and then provide numerous figures to prove it.

But has he done that? NO! Jon Stewart does it nightly. Even Jon Stewart can dig up archive footage of candidate Bush vs. President Bush and show how he lied his ass off. Even Jon Stewart can dig up archive footage of Bush and Cheney changing their stories on the reason to go to war with Iraq. If Jon Stewart can do it, why can't John Kerry?

[Pale Blue Dot]

6. Piling on

I honestly believe that the Kerry campaign is taking a calculated risk. They are letting Bush hang himself (figuratively speaking), while Kerry remains above the fray. While Buch's incompetence becomes front and center, Kerry reamins in the shadows. Then, closer to the election, he presents himself as the POSITIVE alternative.

We all want Kerry to attack Bush relentlessly, but there is a huge danger in that. I firmly believe that the people who still support Bush today will not change their minds and vote for Kerry. The key to this election is GETTING THEM TO STAY HOME. If Kerry attacks Bush relentlessly now, their hatred of Kerry will become the motivating factor to get them to the polls.

Like it or not, I don't think this election is about energizing the liberals. We are already energized and united by our hatred of Bush. This election is about NOT getting the opposition energized.

If I'm right, Kerry and his team are handling this brilliantly.

[flamingyouth]

7. I totally agree, Finnfan

I think they're basically giving the Bush camp enough rope in terms of public opinion. I'm pleased that the Kerry/Edwards campaign is taking the high road for now; I'm sure we'll see plenty of "negativity" (read: pointing out the facts) about the Bush cronies as we get closer to November and the debates.:hi:

[MORON]

8. True..This is probably why Kerry has been nominated for a Stupidity Award

http://stupidityawards.com/