It's the economy, stupid!

When the relatively unknown Clinton took on a fairly popular president, who at one time had a huge wartime approval rating, he did it by picking a theme and pounding it into the public’s mind. It’s the economy: see all those job losses? See how horrible the last 4 years have been with regard to jobs, retirement plans, your financial well being? Bush tried to tell the country that the rebound had already begun (and it had) but Clinton masterfully kept everyone focused on job losses, an economy that everyone felt was hurting them personally. Clinton and his campaign were like bulldogs on the issue.

So why in the hell is Kerry and his team spending the week focusing on flu shots??? Dammit, it’s like they WANT to lose. Is there no one on their team that understands the need for a white hot focus? If Kerry loses this election, it will be at least as much due to their complete inability to pick a theme and drive it home, over and over and over, until it sticks, as it will any strategy by the GOP. They’ve got a much better case on the economy now than Clinton did when he whipped Bush the elder, but they cannot get off on the issue of the week. No one is going to pick Kerry over the incumbent because of flu shots, yet that has been the message from his campaign in the news, in their appearances on the morning shows, ect. this week.

They can blame the media, etc. for their diffuse talking points, but this is the freaking presidential election: this is the big leagues and they have to take control of their message. I’m convinced that if they had stayed focused on the economy, with a solid plan for handling terrorism thrown in, but pounding, pounding, pounding on the economy, Kerry could be up by 8 - 10 points. Flu shots - sheesh!

Kerry is building the case that Bush is incompetent and hapless in the face of crisis.

Also remember that not every political argument is aimed at everybody.

It didn’t have much effect when they did pound on the economy, apparently. And the flu shots thing sounds stupid, but apparently people really care.

Bringing up the Flu shot issue is actually quite smart.

Who are most likely to be disturbed and effected by the flu? The old and the very young.

So, by focusing on the flu shot issue, he reminds older voters (and boy, do those people turn out on election day, particularly in Florida…) how Bush is messing with their health (and by inference, health care).

It’s a targetted appeal, to potential voters that historically do turn out and vote on Election Day, senior citizens.

How are they arguing that this is Bush’s fault? Not that I’m saying it’s not, but on first glance, Chiron’s factory in the UK had some issues, and now they have bugs in their juice. Is Kerry saying “Bush should have done X and didn’t” or is he just saying “See? Bad things happening! President bad!”?

They’re trying to make the case that Bush didn’t prepare for it, that he should have seen it coming. The problem is that the issue is a bit more complex than that, and there was a lot in the news about the UK company being forced out of supplying flu shots, thus leading to the shortage. I’ve heard several people in hall talk (most people here are Kerry supporters) make the comment “Didn’t they say on TV/on the radio a few weeks ago that some British company was prevented from supplying flu vaccine, and didn’t they say that could lead to a shortage? Why is Kerry trying to pin this on Bush?” I think that was in the news enough that it diminishes the argument some, plus it’s just not a core theme, and Kerry needs to quit flitting around and drive home a core theme until it sticks.

As for having tried to make it the economy and it didn’t work: my perception is that they haven’t stuck to any core message in a focused, passionate, consistent manner through the entire campaign. Every week it seems like something different is coming out of the campaign. We can blame the media, for things like the National Guard debate, the Cheny lesbian daughter issue, etc. but Kerry and his people have been too happy to latch on to the issue of the week. The whole National Guard issue: maybe one comment, then back to “Whether or not Bush fulfilled his obligations to his nation in his Guard service, one thing is clear: he has not fulfilled his obligations to the nation when it comes to ensuring your economic security. Are you better off financially, do you feel more financially secure than you did 4 years ago? Do you feel safer in terms of your job security than you did 4 years ago?” The media talks up the Cheny daughter issue: “My comments on Mr. and Mrs. Cheny’s daughter were intended to put a face on what often turns into an impersonal argument. But frankly I can see how the Bush campaign would prefer us to spend all of our time discussing a choice of how to make a pointin a debate, because it keeps us from talking about an issue that every American has to deal with every day, which is why someone is having to travel to India to train the person who is about to take their job - what kind of impersonal nation have we become where it is acceptable for a company to not only send thousands of their jobs to another country, but on top of that tell the people being fired that they have to teach those people HOW to do their jobs - otherwise they wouldn’t be able to do them - and if they refuse to teach someone from India or some other far off country, they lose what little compensation they would get from being fired? Isn’t that the ultimate in humiliation, the pinnacle in disrespect? Yet that is the Bush economy, and not only does he not have a plan to repair it, he will try to tell you that there’s nothing wrong with it.”

Take control of the forum, hit people with the message, keep hitting them with the same message until it takes, and quit getting distracted and decoyed.

It also helped that Clinton was a dreamboat.

/sigh/swoon

replace all instances of “sigh” with “swoon”?

Um, er, okay lemme change it to

sigh
swoon

…freaking DOS nerds… grumble grumble

The same tactics don’t work the same way for different guys. Just because Clinton got away with a “white hot focus” doesn’t mean Kerry would. I don’t think he would get away with it, simply because he’s not as attractive to listen to and watch. When he hammers on something it becomes grating.

I’ve seen this in the few instances when Kerry did try to pull a white hot focus on one issue. What I heard was people rolling their eyes and saying, “He always says that.” They said that in the same tone they used to parrot the, “He keeps talking about a plan but doesn’t give the plan” nonsense, which I just lemmingly accepted too until I realized Kerry had just gone through his plan, point by point, before the person made this comment. When I brought this up, the person said, “Oh.”

People complain that the candidates don’t give them the specifics of their plans, but the truth is most people turn right off when a candidate starts to do so.

I don’t think Kerry would benefit from sticking with the economy and just hammering on that. National Security is too big an issue. And Clinton was far more smooth.

-Amanpour

So what’s the alternative? Talking about flu shots, then something else next week, then some other topic a week later? The one issue that resonates with the American populace is the economy; they personalize it. And Bush should be incredibly vulnerable in that area, yet it’s just a passing topic.

Kerry really should be up by a lot - it’s frustrating to see how ineffective his campaign has been. And I think a strong, consistent focus that doesn’t get distracted by the issue of the week has to be more effective than the alternative. And it’s not like his opponent is “smooth.”

He’s not expected to be.

Anyway, I think in some ways Democrats will be running against Clinton for some time to come, in addition to dealing with their actual opponent(s). Or if not exactly running against him, then running with the burden he left their party. People are afraid to trust Kerry. After all the chicanery of the current administration, they have the gall to make trust an issue with Kerry. I just don’t think that’s all about Kerry. I think people felt hurt by Clinton in a way akin to the way a lover feels who has been fucked over by the same person a few times. It becomes hard to trust anyone again. I think Kerry, et. al., will live with that for some time.

I hate to play the 9/11 card, but not anymore, not in a make-or-break way at least. I think the deficit in particular, while important to those who understand the connections and care about them, has been proven not to move anyone to vote one way or the other. It should be a huge issue. However, I believe the research shows that people care about the deficit, but as a campaign issue it’s just not a winning horse.

Bush should be vulnerable on the economy, but he can fog things just enough to make it a non-issue. And part of that is because of our obsession with security now.

Not necessarily. I agree that the Kerry campaign needs more focus, but it cannot be a laserbeam focus on the economy. Iraq and terrorism are just, if you’ll excuse me, sexier. His campaign does need more focus, and a boatload more discipline, but it has to keep highlighting a cluster of issues–including the economy–all of which exist happily under the umbrella of national security.

“It’s not sexy, but it’s got teeth.”

-Amanpour

Oh, please. DOS didn’t even do reg exps. Clearly, MikeSofaer is a 1337 *nix hax0r. :-)

Flu shots resonates because of this: While people wait on a three hour line for a flu shot, they wonder what would happen if it were smallpox.

I wish the Dems had always focused on Bush’s incompetence, because, man, he is.

Is it hard to make sure everybody gets flu shots, and in the event a of a smallpox attack, smallpox vaccine? Sure. Being President is hard. That’s why its good to elect really smart people, and leave the not so smart people to languish on the boards of daddy’s friends companies.

Wow. Lots of people dying every year because of the flu.

Yeah, but see, health-care just isn’t an issue like terrorism is. Why, we lost, what, roughly 5000 people on 9/11? The flu and it’s measly 36k per year death toll can’t hold a candle to that!

Closer to 3000, actually. The thing of it is, the security issue isn’t based on rational concerns. We don’t focus on 9/11 out of a rational concern about future terrorist actions. 9/11 made us afraid. We felt safe, as a nation, prior to that. Even though there are many problems that kill a geometrically larger number of people, they’re “part of life”, or “out of our hands”. In the September 11th attacks, an outside force came into our home, attacked us, and made us feel afraid, took away our sense of security at home. It’s that feeling that still resonates, and it’s that feeling which Bush and Rove have masterfully played on all through the elections, with themes like “if Kerry gets elected, you’ll be attacked again,” or “The Terrorists want Kerry to win!” Rational thinking has nothing to do with the effectiveness of this strategy - just the opposite.

Closer to 3000, actually. The thing of it is, the security issue isn’t based on rational concerns. We don’t focus on 9/11 out of a rational concern about future terrorist actions. 9/11 made us afraid. We felt safe, as a nation, prior to that. Even though there are many problems that kill a geometrically larger number of people, they’re “part of life”, or “out of our hands”. In the September 11th attacks, an outside force came into our home, attacked us, and made us feel afraid, took away our sense of security at home. It’s that feeling that still resonates, and it’s that feeling which Bush and Rove have masterfully played on all through the elections, with themes like “if Kerry gets elected, you’ll be attacked again,” or “The Terrorists want Kerry to win!” Rational thinking has nothing to do with the effectiveness of this strategy - just the opposite.[/quote]

I would argue with the comment that concern with terrorism isn’t based on rational concerns. One day someone in the terrorist leadership is going to realize how much more effective it would be, from a terrorism point of view, to simply have 20 suicide bombers blow themselves up in the middle of malls, simultaneously, across the country. That would do more than any airplanes striking high profile targets to shut this country down, and it would be almost impossible to stop, unless you had superior intelligence organizations working very effectively (and even then: see Israel.) There are indeed people dedicated to taking the U.S. down.

What is sad, though, is how we’ve allowed a very real and what could have been a very unifying issue to once again turn into political fodder. It didn’t start with this election, and it’s been used by both sides, but without a doubt it has been raised to a truly nauseating level recently.

The chance of any terrorist organization ever doing something that could even come within vague shouting distance of “taking the US down” is so small as to be laughable. In terms of risk to your life, Terrorism is one of the tiniest threats in existance. You are at far greater risk hundreds of times a day in your daily routine than you will ever be from a terrorist.

That said, however, you fundamentally misunderstood my statement, Jeff. I was not saying that there is no rational reason to be concerned about terrorism, which seems to be what you got from my post. What I was saying is that the current fear of terrorism in this country - the certainty that “they’re coming to get us,” that we’re “in a never ending war against people who could destroy us,” and the decision to make it the single greatest priority in the nation - all of that is irrational, and most of it is motivated by irrational fear, amongst the populace at large. Terrorism is absolutely a significant concern and one that must be addressed by our nation, now and in the future - but our current perpective on it, and our current approach to it, are so broken as to be nearly psychotic. We’ve decided to pursue a path designed to make us feel more secure, rather than a course that would actually do so - symbolized most elegantly by the replacement of Osama Bin Laden with Saddam Hussein as public enemy number one.

Closer to 3000, actually. The thing of it is, the security issue isn’t based on rational concerns. We don’t focus on 9/11 out of a rational concern about future terrorist actions. 9/11 made us afraid. We felt safe, as a nation, prior to that. Even though there are many problems that kill a geometrically larger number of people, they’re “part of life”, or “out of our hands”. In the September 11th attacks, an outside force came into our home, attacked us, and made us feel afraid, took away our sense of security at home. It’s that feeling that still resonates, and it’s that feeling which Bush and Rove have masterfully played on all through the elections, with themes like “if Kerry gets elected, you’ll be attacked again,” or “The Terrorists want Kerry to win!” Rational thinking has nothing to do with the effectiveness of this strategy - just the opposite.[/quote]

I would argue with the comment that concern with terrorism isn’t based on rational concerns. One day someone in the terrorist leadership is going to realize how much more effective it would be, from a terrorism point of view, to simply have 20 suicide bombers blow themselves up in the middle of malls, simultaneously, across the country. That would do more than any airplanes striking high profile targets to shut this country down, and it would be almost impossible to stop, unless you had superior intelligence organizations working very effectively (and even then: see Israel.) There are indeed people dedicated to taking the U.S. down.
[/quote]

Yes, but on a death-toll basis, it would still pale compared to the flu.

The point is that the primary MO of terrorism is to induce terror. We know about germs, we all believe we can control whether or not we get sick to an acceptable degree. Terrorism is an unknown. It’s not a rational fear, it’s fear of the unknown. This is what the Bush campaign is currently picking Kerry apart for, his wording that he believes terrorism can be reduced to an acceptable “nuisance”. He’s right, in the same way that TB, Whooping Cough, Measles, etc… have all been reduced to an acceptable nuisance. In terms of actual numbers, terrorism is a drop in the pan compared to what’s going on with the health care system. But people believe their health is in their hands or the hands of someone who can make sure it turns out well. (This is actually not the case, there are all sorts of things in health care that scare me far more than the thought of some militant fundamentalist showing up to blow me up in a shopping mall. Antibiotic resistant strains of nasty pathogens being primary among that list.)

It’s akin to the way that if a plane goes down all sorts of people decide to not use the airlines and instead drive, despite the per capita risk of death being far, far greater if one is driving. It’s an illusory safety, not a rational one. The flip side is that airplane crashes (and terrorism) are illusory risks moreso than rational. (Not to say that terrorism isn’t a real risk, but that the magnitude of it is perceived to be far greater than it is.)

This is, of course, a point that simply cannot be made to the american public. Primarily because terrorism involves large explosions, sensationalistic media coverage, and the always fun feeling of there being someone out there “out to get us”.