So with the economy sputtering, the obvious thing to do is to bash President Bush as much as possible, right? Wrong, at least in my opinion, which, as you know, is valued quite highly in the newsgroup alt.politics.election.strategy.stratego.monopoly.battleship.um.where.do. I.go.with.this.joke. ... .monkey.poop.cha-ching.
Focusing mostly on Bush's record on the economy is a risky bet. If the economy is sluggish, it's good for Kerry. But if the economy is strong, like Russian vodka, or gives the appearance of improving, like my ability to eat doughnuts, then all the time and money the Kerry campaign put in focusing on the economy is wasted. Will people care if the net job loss over 4 years is 1,000,000 jobs if the economy gained 1,000,000 of them in the last six months? I sense that the "Bush has lost
But, as The Economist's cover points out, there's no need for Kerry to put most of his resources towards focusing on the economy. Bush has a host of flaws that will still be flaws six months from now, such as the record budget deficit and a term-length trend of misleading people on everything from WMDs to the estimated cost of the new Medicare bill. Some of these issues are strong enough to gain traction with the public if they are pounded by the message long and early.
Perhaps no one issue is as important to most voters as the economy, but I think attacking Bush on two or three of his weaknesses can cumulatively have the same effect and is a more stable strategy.
If you disagree, you can complain at my newsgroup.
No comments:
Post a Comment