Underreported this weekend is the Rasmussen poll that shows one third of Ted Strickland's lead over Ken Blackwell having evaporated in the same week that the Foley scandal threatened Republicans nationwide.
That's how you tell the story when you want Blackwell to win. If you like Strickland, you note that Strickland remains twelve points up in Rasmussen and well ahead in every other poll.
Nevertheless, in our SWNIDish opinion, Strickland is not the sure thing that many think. But he will be unless Blackwell starts campaigning smart. To wit: the requisite mudslinging (and wouldn't you like to get the fees commanded by that one nicotine-larynxed guy who does all the voice-overs for the political hit jobs?) needs to be accompanied by consistent, repeated telling of the Ken Blackwell ghetto-to-statehouse story.
Lincoln didn't win by saying that Douglas was "bad for America's working families." His people told his story as a poor boy who split rails, read by firelight, copied lessons with a charred stick on a shovel, and studied law when he discovered Blackwell's law text in an unclaimed barrel that he bought for salvage. (Note that they stopped there and didn't finish with his role as corporate counsel for the Illinois Central Railroad.)
Voters at present are likely dissatisfied with all available choices. At this stage, their commitments are plastic. Meanwhile, Blackwell has one fine story to tell. If enough people know it, they'll find it hard to vote against him. Who doesn't see the appeal in the hard-working black kid from Cincinnati's West End who goes to college on a football scholarship, marries his high school sweetheart, and rises through the ranks to run for the chance to be Ohio's first African-American governor?
In four weeks, Blackwell may be able to convince enough voters that he's that person, and not the devil who has stolen elections, connived with the corrupt Republican establishment, and will bankrupt Ohio on the way to more stolen elections and more corruption.
7 comments:
I'm reasonably young, especially at this whole politics thing, but in your slightly more seasoned SWNIDish opinion, have politics always been this good at encouraging democratic apathy? Why would I want to choose between two people saying the same thing in different words in EVERY SINGLE RACE? Please, help me. I want to vote.
You've pointed your youthful finger at the problem as I see it, Young Farris. All the way from Vegas.
Negative campaigning is nothing new. Washington ran unopposed (and passively), but he was accused of acting more like a king than a citizen.
As Democrats blame Republicans for modern negative campaigning, they should remember that the archetype of the modern, negative TV ad was Johnson's ad that talked about what a wing-nut Goldwater was, whilst a little girl picked daisies. The commercial ended with a nuclear explosion and mushroom cloud. Subtle message: Goldwater will kill your little girls. Really!
But in my never-humble opinion, this is the worst that I've seen. There's no message, just dumb attacks. A couple of days ago I saw an ad that blamed a congressman for not regulating payday loan operations (which should be regulated to death, IMHO) and linking this failure to lack of support for people in the military. Sheesh! Are soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines the only ones who get payday loans?
And the irony, I add yet again, is that McCain-Feingold was supposed to regulate away all the negativity by requiring those dumb "I'm Fenster Henstermester, and I approved this message" statements.
I've been told that the Johnson add you referred to was the brainchild of his press secretary, Bill Moyers, who now spends much of his time accusing Republicans of negative campaigning. Can anyone verify that the add was indeed Moyers's idea?
The same logic would have me voting for the inevitable Obama ticket that will be running for POTUS in a few years. I realize that SWNID is not proposing the Blackwell narrative as an apology for why he should be the next governor of the Buckeye State, however you must realize the consequences of any political strategy that encourages voters to choose their candidate based on aesthetic value. Though it might work for Blackwell, it might also work for some other less desirable candidate in the future whose task will be all the easier for having a voter base preconditioned to react positively to sob stories.
SWNID didn't say that people should vote for the candidate with the best sob story. He said that sob stories are a potentially effective appeal to voters who vote on less than the best criteria.
Nevertheless, Obama might be a national candidate worth voting for someday.
I get to vote in Ohio because Las Vegas is a cess pool (I guess that's how one would go about spelling that). I moved back just in time to register and see those awesome (!) ads about the payday loan places. On another day, can somebody please tell me how legally those things can stay open?
Does Sherrod Brown know that nobody on Conservative Talk Radio can pronounce his name?
I've always wanted to quote myself, and apparently there is need to do so in this case. As I said, "I realize that SWNID is not proposing the Blackwell narrative as an apology for why he should be the next governor of the Buckeye State, however you must realize the consequences of any political strategy that encourages voters to choose their candidate based on aesthetic value."
Post a Comment