Kerry: Lose the Spin to Win

[orwell]

The Bush Regime has already clearly signaled that it will run the dirtiest campaign in history. What should the Kerry campaign do? Go relentlessly positive. There is no clearer way to differentiate himself than to present a positive vision for America's future in the world against Pass the Buck Bush's clearly terror filled vision of America against the world.

Does this mean he avoids the negatives like threats from terror or the growing environmental problems? No. But he must address them positively without the endless attacks on the Bush policies. Let the surrogates like Move-On, the unions, Air America and a host of others do the take down work on the Bushie Crime Family. Let the mounting scandals do their dirty work. Stay above it and become a unifying leader, addressing the concerns of all Americans.

I would start by a series of 30 second to 1 minute spots where Kerry introduces himself to the American people. These would be set against a simple blue backdrop. He would look straight into the camera and say where he comes from, why he wants to be President, and where he wants to take the country in the 21st century. They could show an elaborate set in the background being torn down, to imply a contrast between the Bush Cabal stage managed phony PR campaign and a simple heartfelt appeal to all Americans on why he wants to be President, what he considers the main challenges, and how he wants to end the polarization of the body politic.

Above all keep it simple, clear and real. And don't mention Bush at all.

There is a huge untapped base of perspective voters who are already tuning out the high priced PR drivel. They feel that politics does not speak to them. It is time for Kerry to present himself in his own terms, without the spin and glitz. If he can effectively do this, he will win, no matter what the Bushies do.

America knows what G.W is all about. The task at hand is for Kerry to define what he is all about in a clear, positive manner. The time to set this tone is now, while a great portion of the undecideds are beginning to formulate an impression.

In other words, lose the spin to win.

O

[trotsky]

1. I agree, but...

study after study shows that a majority of people both:

A) hate negative campaigning

B) are influenced greatly by it

What can you do?

[orwell]

4. Block Party

I think this election is already so polarized that the normal rules don't apply. A significant percentage of people have already made up their minds. What you are fighting for is the small group of undecideds who may respond to negatives as you posit, but more importantly you are trying to capture the gigantic number of people who will not even vote. A major block, the single women, will not respond to negative campaigning. They will stay home.

Huffington's article in Salon yesterday discusses this.

O

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

2. But after today's jobs report...

...Kerry is going to HAVE TO deal with the spin, no matter how positively, or lose the election.

http://money.cnn.com/2004/04/02/news/economy/jobs/index.htm?cnn=yes

"Gain of 308,000 jobs far better than Wall Street's forecasts; unemployment rate up to 5.7 percent."

"Economists, on average, had expected 123,000 new jobs and unemployment at 5.6 percent, according to Briefing.com.

It was the strongest gain in payrolls since a matching gain of 308,000 in April 2000."

While Bush is banging the tribal drum and patting himself on the back for the wonderful job he has done as our President, Kerry is going to have to deal with Bush and his lies one way or another. He's going to have to get a little dirty.

This news is just TOO GOOD for Bush. For him, it was Christmas in April. Unless the numbers plummet next month, or unless Clarke successfully sticks a fork in him over 9/11, the last major hurdle...the "job loss recovery"...just got removed.

And yes, I know there is data behind the numbers that Dubya will sidestep, but all you will be hearing about in the immediate new future is "308,000 New Jobs!"

[Warren Stuart]

3. No I disagree, it's not spin when it's the truth

I was reading somewhere (I forget) today, the remark was made that going negative helps the challenger more than the incumbent.

The incumbent has a record that can be attacked, challengers tend to be blank slates that the incumbent tries to define. When an incumbent does this, it may work but it will also reflect back on him. One thing Bush doesn't need are more negatives.

Kerry can go negative, with just the truth, he doesn't need to spin.

Plus, if Kerry doesn't respond in kind to attacks then he will be perceived as weak. So he doesn't really have a choice in the matter.

People say they hate negative campaigns, but they hate wimps even more.

[orwell]

5. Wimpy Burgers

I think you are all missing my point. I am not asking for Kerry to be a wimp. I am stating that he must paint a positive, inclusive vision for the future rather than constantly responding to Bush lies. It is Rove's strategy to attack relentlessly so that Kerry is always defending. If he reponds to every Rove/Bush lie any affirmative message will get buried. In fact, he is playing in Bushies backyard.

It is not "wimpy" to say what you are for rather than what you are against. It is assertive.

O

[Warren Stuart]

6. If he rolls over and does a Dukasis, then he will be buried

He won't of course, he already stated that he will respond vigorously to attacks, and he will. So this discussion is rather moot.

It's time for the gloves to come off, the Republicans can't complain about the Dems going negative, when they are going negative. This takes away their most powerful weapon.

[IronLionZion]

7. They'll still complain

They have the money to bombard the nation with bullshit and don't have to prove anything. They love throwing accusations around and nobody except us care if they back it up.

They are desperately trying to paint Kerry as a flipflopper and a tax raiser. He has to defend himself and throw in some punches of his own. I love the positive Edwards approach as much as anyone but it doesn't work when you are running against evil people.

[orwell]

8. Tanks

Where am I saying he should roll over. Dukakis lost a lot of ground on the "tank" photo and the weak answer to the rape question in the debate. To be honest, I thought Dukakis was a weak candidate before that.

But it is male misconception that not being negative is weakness. The male vote is essentially locked up. What the successful candidate will do now is go after the independent female vote and those voters that are turned off to the political process.

If I respond to a lie you create, I only invoke the lie. If you say I am weak, and I say "No I am not weak!" I only reinforce the fact that I am weak by invoking your image. Rove knows this. That is why the FUD bombs are thrown every day, regardless of their truth. They keep Kerry off message and defensive.

The better way to respond to the weakness charge is to positively state your view of the role of American power and the nature of the true threats in the world. This is not perceived as weak, especially if it is done pro-actively.

For example, on the job creations number, Kerry could have blunted this short term Bush political windfall by stating weeks ago that we would be seeing some good numbers on the job front, but the cost of those numbers today would be inflation, higher deficits, and lower quality jobs tomorrow. Then when the big number comes out, as it did today, he's looks prescient instead of reactionary.

O

[Desertrose]

10. I so agree here Orwell...Kerry cannot be chasing after bush

in trying to define himeself. He has to stand his ground and not react and not try to play catch up to bush's moves....but you said it MUCH better than I have....

Kerry should introduce himself in short ads-tell the American people who he is & what he stands for....I like that idea.

It takes two to play the negative game and if he stands his ground, stays positive and on message...it will be much better...

Kucinich has done this consistently...wish Kerryt would take a cure from DK....

Peace
DR

[Armstead]

9. Agree

I said something similar on a different thread (although I do think a positive agenda oaught to be coupled with a critique of Bush).

People know something bigger is wrong but they can't put their finger on it. We need to articulate that, as well as offer a real alternative.