We are about to see a massive attack on Joe Biden, from paid advertising, from hidden digital, paid ads and troll bots. There are many theories on how one handles these attacks, and disputes about what is correct strategy. At the root of the dispute, If one allows an attack to

go unchallenged, it runs the risk of being believed as true, but if one tries to answer and dispute the attack, one risks "losing the definition", (most political strategists believe like military strategy, that if one can choose the battle field, one has a better chance to win

the battle). If the debate central to the campaign is "Is Biden corrupt?" then Biden doesn't win. If Biden doesn't deny he is corrupt, people may come to believe it. Therein lies the dilemma. This strategic decision is made more difficult when you are at a resource (money)

disadvantage. The strategic decision for Biden's team is again made more difficult by fact that Trump has FOX news, a propaganda network, and largely because of that fact an immovable base of voters at around somewhere between 30% and 42%. The election will therefore be fought

among the increasingly small amount of "swing voters" and the increasing number of "infrequent voters". How Biden chooses to handle this strategic choice will be one of the most important choices of the campaign. I once had a client who described how to make that choice, he

said, sometimes you have to answer an attack, other times you just have to get a bigger 2x4 and hit the other guy over the head with it. I think that over simplifies it. The way I used to handle the decision is 1) determine whether the attack is dangerous, does it do you

damage left unanswered? If you have a competent opponent who uses polling effectively then any attack is likely to be poll tested for effectiveness. 2) If the attack warranted a response, then it must be answered, 3) But the answer needed to answer, pivot and counterattack.

(the counter attack needed to be focused on returning the debate (I called it the dialogue) back to the terms upon which you wanted to fight the battle). That I called controlling the "definition", the central issue in the campaign.

I will ad one more thing I believe that violates the conventional wisdom, that Trump's base is not moveable, I would pick 3 or 4 states just outside the swing state category, Florida, North Carolina, Iowa, Texas, states that are long shots, but which can be made close. By

contesting those states, one could put pressure on Trump, force massive resources allocations there. It is a radical strategy that would need much polling and some thought, but if it could be done, it would expand the battle field and force Trump to play defense. Trump does best

when on offense, and does not do well on the defensive. Those are just the thoughts of an old retired political hack. But it will give you the contours of the debates that may be going on inside the Biden brain trust.