Why a college freshman could run the Kerry campaign.
 

This is my first real post. It hurts a little bit, but generally it feels good...

So I took my university's PS 1 back two years ago when I was a freshman and my professor explained how election politics work in such simplicity that I have to repeat his view here.
He told us that running for an office is all about staying on your message in what you talk about to people and the press, whatever it is: bombing terrorists, loving babies, kicking homeless people, whatever. The idea is to get your opponent off his message and make him have to spend his time explaining irrelevant things. While he or she is explaining the irrelevant thing, you get to hammer in your message with the people. Thus the image that comes off is that you look like a candidate for your office while the other person can't stop talking about and explaining things that don't really matter.
Clearly, this applies to the current election.
Now, what I don't understand is that if this information was available to me in a lower division PS 1 class, WHY DOESN'T KERRY'S CAMPAIGN ADVISORS KNOW ABOUT IT? It makes no sense. He just keeps talking about Vietnam and blah blah blah. All the while Bush gets to talk about policy and what he's going to do with the next four years.
Yuck.
I say: Bartlet in '04! (Not really, but that would be cool, wouldn't it?)

i think your analysis is a bit over simplified -- in a real election you cannot ignore news reports or completely evade reporters questions.

Sometimes theories within the realm and microcosm of a classroom do not take into account real world pressures.

This applies to not just politics, but business adminstration, medicine, et. al.

PLS Classes are way too much about theory and the way things are supposed to work. If you want some better reading, pick up Hardball by Chris Matthews. I don't agree with his political view points, but it's a great study in politicking, because it's real.

What you said is similar to what many intelligent anaylists are criticizing Kerry for right now. My hunch is that the din is too loud for him to do anything else, Bush campaign just has too much money to ignore the shots--they are (or will become even morese) overwhelming.

But maybe you can direct your Q to the campaign and post their answer--I really am curious and your professor seems to have pointed something out that might lend us some insight. Maybe he can explain his position more fully if you drop him an email, too.

Great post!

According to your professor, it seems the Repubs were quicker off the mark in firing the first salvo. G-d knows the Dems had the ammo, but for some reason they were slower off the mark. (cliche party anyone?)

I am loving this RNC. I never thought I'd live long enough to say that.

I have to agree with this. It has been something that the Democrates were better at doing, and i think its neat how they have become more passive as the Reps take to their opponents tactics. But, I do think that it becuase they have a new news force that shows their side more (which isn't a bad thing)

But Kerry's success may depend on if Kerry can turn it around on Bush
Which I don't think will happen, but I'll keep watching

Growing up in a very political family I have been around elections all of my life. What your professor says is very true, in very simple terms. I was told campaigning is like a weird game of tug o war. You try and pull your opponet off balance while maintaing yours. I agree that you have to answer your opponents challanges but in such a way that brings the question back to your side. To give you an example:
Reporter: So did you infact spend Christmas in Cambodia
Kerry: That was a long time ago, in a war that is said and done, what I want to do is make sure that our boys in Iraq will be home in time for Christmas to spend it with their family.

Maybe not the best, but you get the general idea.

I think some of you are missing the obvious point.

Kerry HAS no policy. He has said so many contradictory things that if he states a policy someone will be able to pull a quote where he says just the opposite. The whole primary was about hating Bush but you can only campaign on hate for so long.

Thats why they came out with the 'Hope is on the way!' idea, the problem is the only people really miserable are democrats who hate Bush.

Kerry won out over Dean not because he has anything to say but because he was a 'War Hero (tm)' and seemed more electable. What people didn't realize is what they were really getting is a man who stands for nothing.

The Republicans have a very easy job, they have 30 years of Kerry in the public eye to focus on, and Kerry did a lot of stupid things over those 30 years. So even if Kerry can deflect that sort of criticism, which I don't think he can, the Republicans only just started, he still has nothing positive to say about himself or his vision of America.

Unless Kerry can put down his snow board, put his medals back on the wall, and pull some sort of verbal coupe in the debates its basically over for him.

Surely there is more to you than the standard conservative talking points. Kerry has policy, he just doesn't get much of a chance to talk about it.

http://www.johnkerry.com/index.html
The side bar has a section entitled "Plan for America". Read it before you ever again claim the Kerry has no plan.

Kerry would probably do better to focus on that stuff more than irrelevant vietnam anecdotes from either side of the aisle. Bush doesn't have much of a platform either, aside from reminding people that he remembers 9/11 and that he cut taxes.

Unfortunately for america, our politicians have figured out that most americans are morons (statistical fact, don't shoot the messenger) who like shiny things and pretty words. That is why praising the president for his "conviction" can somehow pass for political commentary. Praising someone for his conviction is the same as praising someone for actually believing in what he or she is saying. "He may be wrong, but i'll be damned if he isn't sure of himself."

The politically aware can generally be counted on to make up their minds sans campaign rhetoric. They're harder to sway. The majority either doesn't vote or doesn't invest enough time to see beyond the factually questionable one liners that each candidate throws out.

In short, you can't pretend only one candidate lacks substance because by any estimate the majority of the process lacks substance.