September 7, 2004
A NEW ONE FOR BULLFINCH:
Kerry camp sees hope in past finishes (Glen Johnson, September 7, 2004, Boston Globe)
This is the time when Kerry's near-mythic reputation as a strong closer based on his Senate campaigns dating to 1984 will be tested on a national stage. With an infusion of new advisers over Labor Day weekend and a message focused on employment, health care, and education issues, the hope is that Kerry can spark one more stretch run to victory in the race he has been building toward throughout his public life.The fundamental question is, can a challenger portrayed as indecisive by his Republican opponents convince the American people that he has the vision, the convictions, and the mettle to replace an incumbent president during a time of war?
Kerry's strategy includes not only sharper language about the stakes of the race, but hopes for strong performances in the upcoming debates against President Bush, a furious rallying of Democratic loyalists by himself and surrogate campaigners during the final two weeks of the campaign, and the willingness -- as shown at a midnight rally last Thursday when he questioned Vice President Dick Cheney's Vietnam deferments -- to go negative on his rivals.
"Near mythic"? He's beaten what's his face, what's his name, Bill Weld in a year when Bill Clinton carried MA by 40% and the seven dwarfs running for the democratic nomination. Who is that mythical too besides him?
Meanwhile, although going negative is an effective way of damaging your opponent the reason folks shy away from it is that it destroys you too, driving your own negatives up in the process. For a candidate as ill-defined as the Senator that seems a huge risk.
Posted by Orrin Judd at September 7, 2004 9:10 AMLet me see if I understand this correctly. Someone who has spent his entire career as a Kennedy Democrat in Massachusetts is used to running as an underdog? I'm not living in an alternate universe am I?
Posted by: Bart at September 7, 2004 9:48 AMIf he were to talk about the economy and health care only, he would stand a very good chance of winning. Promising people to plunder their neighbors in order to give them a free lunch always works. It's the way Europe went down the drain with the enthusiastic support of its voters.
Fortunately for Bush, Kerry cannot keep himself from talking about Vietnam for more than five seconds.
Posted by: Peter at September 7, 2004 10:46 AMPosted by: Michael Herdegen at September 7, 2004 11:05 AM
Is Kerry's hope, that a strong performance during the debates will win him votes, a reasonable one ?
Bush helped himself in '00 during the debates, but that was because he came off as competent and reasonable, against expectations, and this year Kerry doesn't have an image as a grinning dunderhead that he can overcome.
It seems to me that in times past, a strong debate performance usually wasn't enough, a gaffe by one's opponent was also required.
JFK vs. the pale and sweaty Nixon...
Ford saying that Romania and Poland were not under Soviet domination...
Of course, there was also Reagan's "There he goes again !", so perhaps Kerry's not whistling in the dark.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at September 7, 2004 11:22 AMThis article nicely illustrates the problem with the theory that Kerry is a "good closer." He is not a good closer, as the metaphor would suggest, because he has lots of stamina and keeps running strong after his opponents have tired themselves out. Nor is he a "good closer" because he wears well on people, or his quirky personality takes some time to catch on, or his complex arguments need time to sink in. What is meant by calling John Kerry a good closer is that, traditionally, it's not until close to the end that he starts running a competent campaign. In Massachusetts, against Bill Weld, that was enough. It's not enough in a national campaign against George Bush and Karl Rove.
Posted by: David Cohen at September 7, 2004 11:40 AMDavid - Rather, it's not until the end that the Democratic Party machine gets scared that he'll lose and rallies everybody around him. But that works better in a machine-controlled state like Massachusetts than in the nation as a whole. And if he's way behind, the machines may focus their energies on local candidates.
Posted by: pj at September 7, 2004 12:06 PM...can a challenger portrayed as indecisive by his Republican opponents convince the American people that he has the vision, the convictions, and the mettle to replace an incumbent president...
Not if he's already on record as having contradictory visions and convictions. It's not like Republican strategists just reached into a bag of random epithets and happened to pull out "flip-flopper." Not even Kerry's strongest partisans can reconcile Kerry's various statements on Iraq, for instance.
Posted by: PapayaSF at September 7, 2004 2:59 PMLMAO at this article.
he only beat him, weld when he (trailing) decided to ignore weld and run directly against Newt. Much as a recent german chancellor, did run against bush to win.
Who is he going to use as surrogate for Bush, Satan himself? Oh wait....
LMAO at this article.
he only beat him, weld when he (trailing) decided to ignore weld and run directly against Newt. Much as a recent german chancellor, did run against bush to win.
Who is he going to use as surrogate for Bush, Satan himself? Oh wait....
How is he going to be able to "talk about the economy and health care only"? What's he going to say when Bush pulls out one of the pictures of the Russian school---"My health-care plan would have prevented this tragedy"??
Posted by: ray at September 7, 2004 9:50 PM