Some readers didn't believe me when I wrote last week that John Kerry is getting desperate, but maybe they'll believe someone with more insider knowledge.
Dispirited Democrats -- prominent senators, top fundraisers, even a few Kerry confidants -- have told the candidate, who is in Nantucket, that high-level changes are imperative. A few very well-connected Democrats report something will occur in the next few days. One person who might assume more control is Joe Lockhart, a former press secretary to Bill Clinton and a respected public-relations figure, but one who has almost no experience in the high-stakes world of presidential campaigns. Another possibility: veteran Democratic politico John Sasso, currently at the Democratic National Committee.Further, it appears that lack of network coverage (as opposed to cable news coverage) is reducing the conventions' visibility (as I suggested):If there is a change -- Sen. Kerry privately is said to be "bouncing off the walls" in frustration -- it has to be imminent as the eight-week campaign is in full swing by Labor Day. "We have 48 hours," acknowledges an insider.
The decision by the major television networks to trim their convention coverage is sharply reducing the number of viewers who see these political events, Harvard's Shorenstein Center reports. A survey during the Democratic convention noted that millions of potential viewers were lost, and the same is likely this week.Yeah so, I sometimes know what I'm talking about.None of the three biggest networks, for example, aired any of last night's coverage.
In 1976, each network carried more than 20 hours of convention coverage for both parties, but that has steadily declined to about three hours this year.
ABC, CBS and NBC argue the former comprehensive coverage isn't necessary because cable TV fills that void. But the Shorenstein Center points out one-fifth of households don't have cable. And particularly critical is that "inadvertent" viewers -- those who channel surf -- do so much more on broadcast networks than cable channels. Even many cable viewers, the study found "habitually monitor the network channels but do routinely check to see what's being telecast on CNN, Fox or MSNBC."
(HT: kf.)
A change in strategy isn't a sign of desperation.
A change in strategy is a change in strategy.
"Desperation" makes it sound like Kerry is about to lose by a landslide. This is clearly not the case.
Polls about the bid for President... snapshots of the situation though they may be... are remarkable here because of what HASN'T changed between earlier in the year and now. Ever since Kerry was the presumptive nominee, his numbers against Bush have remained very close.
Desperation? Hardly.
General Tommy Franks announced on Hannity's syndicated radio show that he is officially endorsing President Bush for re-election. This from a respected military leader who never endorses political candidates. That's going to be another blow to Kerry's attempts to woo the military vote.
In addition, the convention will surprise many folks when they announce General Franks is slated to speak Thursday night.
I suppose Mark will try and paint this as a "wash". :-)
Bush didn't really start campaigning until a couple of weeks ago. The Kerry "lead" up to that point was probably a direct consequence -- and the Kerry deficit at this point is similarly explained.
The more of Kerry the public sees, the less they like him; the more of Dubya the public sees, the more they like him. And no candidate has ever won high office by hiding from the public.
JP: "I suppose Mark will try and paint this as a "wash"."
No more than you'll try to paint it as highly important and indicative.
FP: "Bush didn't really start campaigning until a couple of weeks ago. The Kerry "lead" up to that point was probably a direct consequence -- and the Kerry deficit at this point is similarly explained."
Incorrect. Bush has been campaigning for the last 4 years... for either the midterm elections or this year's Presidential election. It's one of the advantages of being the incumbent.
"The more of Kerry the public sees, the less they like him; the more of Dubya the public sees, the more they like him. And no candidate has ever won high office by hiding from the public."
The public has been seeing Kerry since he emerged as the presumptive nominee earlier in the year. Neither Bush nor Kerry have been "hiding from the public".
Lots of Democrats were having second thoughts about how Bill Clinton ran his 1992 campaign and whether or not his campaign might be falling apart or getting desperate right up to the moment that he ousted the incumbent, George H. Bush.
Mark: touché
*grin* Don't worry - we won't tell anyone and spoil your record. *ducks, runs very fast* ;]p~
"The more of Kerry the public sees, the less they like him; the more of Dubya the public sees, the more they like him. And no candidate has ever won high office by hiding from the public."
So then, where is that other guy? You know, John... ummmm... Edwards! Yah, where has Edwards been hiding?