Understanding "painting" and the General Election

Painting or creating a negative impression of an opponent works much better on unknowns. The president, whoever he/she is, is very well known by the time of the next election, so it is very difficult to paint them against whatever impression they have created in the public consciousness.

Unfortunately, unless an opposition candidate is a celebrity (like Paul Newman or Schwarzenegger) they are not well known nationally and can be painted easily.

In the coming election, Bush is known to the apolitical masses as an honorable man , if perhaps not too intelligent. Trying to paint him as a criminal will not work without evidence to back up the charges. If treasongate or another scandal doesn't come through with public charges by election time, he will not be paintable.

One exception:
If Iraq is not under control, or if the economy tanks (from where it is now) Bush could be painted as incompetent or wrong-headed. If not, he will be pretty much teflon-coated.

Our candidate because he/she is not well known, will be easily paintable-- and the painting has already begun, so far by the press, and the candidates attacking each other.

So, while it will be good to have a candidate that attacks Bush, it will not matter much in the GE. The most important criteria will be that they are seen as a more competent leader who can protect America in the uncertainties ahead (foreign policy/military/security) and that they have a reasonable plan to help accelerate economic growth and create new jobs.

Good security credentials are a minimum. Because America still feels insecure, Bush will campaign on his "success" in this sphere.
This pretty much means that Kerry and Clark have the best chance to neutralize Bush on this issue. And he must be neutralized, or the rest of the Democratic domestic message will not be heard.

Good economic plans that sound reasonable to the American public will
then be essential. Our candidate will have to offer something that actually sounds believable to apolitical middle who are rather skeptical of politician's promises. Both Kerry and Clark have them.

Finally, our candidate will have to be at least as likable as Bush (to the apolitical masses who decide elections) and perceived as a strong leader.

Therefore, I hope that either Kerry or Clark wins the nomination.

Who is going to hold up better?

Well said, andym!

dealing with a public that is so manipulatable that appeals to reason, discussion of policies, etc., have no effect on them because that public is only moved by emotion and whatever broad strokes can be "painted" for them. Schwartzenegger, for example, was elected by an electorate that responded only to how he had been painted in his movies -- specifically, the terminator movies.

This is sad and dangerous, and hard to fight. I don't know the answer. Although I like Dean the best, I feel Clark (who has "paint" of his own as a successful general) may well be our best shot. He, like Dean, is not afraid of Bush and his cronies, and he already has the military cachet that Bush has successfully "painted" for himself.

I am so different from mainstream Americans that it is difficult for me to anticipate what they will do in November. All I can do is get my kid and his friends registered to vote and hope for the best.

I think you are correct.

Mainstream Americans who decide the election just don't have time to pay attention to politics beyond what they hear and read in the media, or perhaps what their friends tell them.

That's why painting works.

It's also why this election is going to be very difficult to win barring
a deterioration in Iraq, or an economic downturn (from where we are now). But if it is winnable, it will be won on personality (a likable strong leader), and assurances on security (only Clark or Kerry will likely work here), plus an exciting domestic policy.

your premise is correct...nuetralize the security issue so that more of the democratic message can be presented

You are right. The central idea is to neutralize the
security angle, so that all the good domestic plans
can be heard. It is likely to be essential.

:dem:

eom