Quote:
Originally posted by rgr22j
Most Americans, after all, still believe Iraqis were the ones who hijacked the planes flown into the WTC.
-- Alvin
|
Overall, I think a very thoughtful analysis of the situation. I disagree with some points but agree with your assessment of the current crop of challengers. Any strategy that gives serious weight to the above quote is way off base, however. Even if it were true (which I doubt) it is certainly not true of the section of the population that actually votes.
America likes:
the underdog
lineage (perhaps some ingrained love of being ruled? I don't know)
basic concepts
The war on terrorism is a basic concept to America. "We" are the good guys and "they" are the bad guys. The President will get the benefit of the doubt when it comes to naming who "they" are.
The economy is still a big weak point with Bush. Even though I know a President has little direct influence over the economy, the American people believe in responsibility for things under a leader's watch and there needs to be somone at fault for bad things.
Personal attacks against Bush will not work. They didn't work with Clinton and there was a heck of a lot more ammunition. Bush still is not a great communicator, a similar strategy to the one that ousted his father may work if he falls into the trap of not coming across as sympathetic on a key issue (gonna be difficult though because Clinton reinforced in the current crop of politicos from both parties that almost everything is forgivable if you're sympathetic).
Your candidate needs to have a nationally recognized name (most of the current candidates do not have that) and a lineage of success. Whether it be political, corporate (don't forget how well liked Steve Forbes was by Americans), or even from the entertainment field (Arnold is popular even though he doesn't seem to stand for anything). Americans love successful people.
Bush is at least somewhat vulnerable but only to a good candidate with a great election team.