[Population: One] <A HREF="http://popone.innocence.com/ar

[bryant]

Bush's new campaign video, "Kerry's Coalition of the Wild-eyed," will certainly inspire his base. It's a miscalculation nonetheless.

The video opens with Gore asking how we can possibly drag the good name of America through Saddam's torture prison. This keeps the Abu Ghraib scandal prominent. That's not so good for Bush; it doesn't poll well at all. Then you get the cheesy Nazi images which won't hurt Bush, although their use here implies that Abu Ghraib wasn't so bad -- which, again, people will disagree with.

Next, Howard Dean says he wants his country back. This may be the most effective moment for Bush; the Dean = anger meme is still around. It's immediately followed by the segment of Michael Moore's Academy Award speech in which he says that we went to war for fictitious reasons. Hey, if Bush wants to remind a disenchanted public that they may agree with Moore, that's fine by me.

Then Gephardt calls Bush a miserable failure. 54% of Americans polled by USA Today think that sending troops to Iraq was a mistake. Whoops. More Nazi images in left-wing political ads follow -- again, this'll be pretty effective -- and then Gore calls out that Bush has betrayed this country. You know, it's easier to smear Gore as an out of control maniac when you don't show him speaking with honest passion.

Finally, Bush kindly presents Kerry's soundbite about all the people who are unemployed because of Bush's policies. Ouch.

So yeah -- this is going to make anyone who was already going to vote for Bush very happy. But it is not going to persuade fence-sitters. It simply exposes the undecided to 20 seconds of Bush criticism without any response from the Bush campaign other than "wow, aren't they angry and cynical?" Problem is, it's a cynicism and anger which is shared by many voters.

(Via rone.)

Comments

[rob-donoghue.livejournal.com]

Well, a lot of folks are looking at the numbers and reaching a fairly depressing conclusion: The number of true fence sitters is pathetically, possibly even insignifigantly, small. There are plenty of people who will report themselves as independants, but it seems that despite their claims to open mindedness, they just aren't going to change their vote. Those exceptions that occour are rarely in th emiddle, but are more often between the mainstream and the fringe (Kerry Vs. Nader). Even those folks who end up with a strong reason to vote against "their" candidate are most likely to express that through not voting. I admit, this holds up with my personal experience, so I'm disappointed, but not shocked.

So the rub is, as folks have been saying, turnout, and whether or not you can motivate your base. This was common enough wisdom before hand, but if you buy the numbers on the static independants (Which I'm guessing the Bush folks do) then this is exactly the sort of add to run.

One other factor comes into this. I think this add is a lot more canny than it looks. The republican party is historically really good at grabbing something historically positive on the democrats side and poisoning it to the point where the democrats are unwillign to touch it (Like the term 'Liberal'). If Bush can pull this off, he'll be the high minded gentleman looking to concentrate on what's best for America, not the petty, cynical destruction that comes of campaigning. Bush is trying to sell himself as a Satesman, not a politician - being able to say "I made unpopular decisions because I think they were right. You may disagree, and the beauty of America is that you can do so with your vote. SO I want you to go an vote your conscience, but before you do, ask yourself, if my opponent saw a poll sayng X, but Y was right, what do you think he'd do?"

Whether he can pull it off is another question entirely, but if he does, it'll be because of Kerry's complacence and imability to call plays on the field.

Not that I've gotten used to that from Democrats.