What's the Narrative on the Ground? Pundit-speak is easy

[factcheckr]

Instantly offer up a pundit-worthy analysis of the next debate: Plug in any candidate’s name, pick your phrase from the multiple selections, and pretend like you know what you're talking about.


As this historic campaign comes down to the final stretch, the upcoming debate will have to address some key concerns: Can the candidate look presidential enough? Will he use the right body language? Will he wink?

Going into this head-to-head showdown, the candidate’s opposition has been making an enormous deal out of his latest gaffe. Will this one turn out to be: a game changer / just another atmospheric / a 3 a.m. moment? Perhaps so. The most interesting thing to see will be what effect it has on the candidate’s “problem” voters. Lately, he’s been doing a little better with that demographic, or a little worse, depending on which poll you look at. But overall, the needle is moving. This debate is his chance to talk directly to those folks, many of whom are still undecided.

So what does he have to do, and more importantly, will he do it? Can he: check all the boxes / connect the dots / show them he gets it? Clearly, this isn’t the time to be dog-whistling to the faithful or throwing red meat to the base. In terms of tactics, I don’t expect to see any sea change here. But given the Sturm and Drang of recent weeks, to try and have the same conversation in a different news cycle is simply a non-starter. If he’s tone-deaf enough to do that, his opponent is going to: drink his milkshake / eat his lunch / pick all the low-hanging fruit.

Meanwhile, the candidate’s base will be looking to see if he responds strongly enough to the negative ads coming out of the so-called 527s, those well-funded astroturf organizations known for both under-the-radar whispering campaigns and over-the-top attack ads. Publicly, the candidate’s people claim that the 527s are nothing more than echo chambers for his opponent’s campaign, and the desperate nature of their smears indicates that the opposition has finally: crossed the Rubicon / jumped the shark / cratered. They say that the wheels have come off their opponent’s campaign; there’s just no there there, and the voters aren’t about to drink that Kool-aid. But privately, senior staffers worry that these persistent attacks are starting to: re-frame the debate / damage the candidate’s brand / suck up all the oxygen in the room.

Still, I think the candidate’s supporters will be disappointed if they expect him to address the attack ads head-on. We’re more likely to see some triangulation and pivoting, and a little inside baseball, as he tries to get his opponent to grab that third rail. So we’ll see how that plays out. Look for him to leave it to his surrogates to play the whole: scorched earth / kitchen sink / pick your metaphor thing.

The bottom line is, we’ve seen this campaign move from old-fashioned retail politics to simmering scandals, wild attacks, and non-stop gaffes. Now both campaigns are accusing the other of: flip flopping / appealing to the lowest common denominator / talking in code. In this debate, the candidate will want to come across as a bipartisan moderate who can get things done. How well he can pull that off remains to be seen, but one thing is certain: If the instant polling shows that he did poorly, then clearly the campaign didn’t set expectations low enough.

And that’s the narrative here on the ground.



Author tags: pundits debate analysis satire

[taterguy]

1. Needs more Olive garden references

That is, if you post it in the Lounge