Read on Twitter
Okay, so everyone is dunking on this take. And I’m gonna dunk on it too. But from a sliiiiiightly different angle.
I think the Biden/Harris non-answer is basically fine. It’s also identical to the answer Leonhardt suggests they give instead.
(Short thread) https://twitter.com/dleonhardt/status/1314960274798055426
I think the Biden/Harris non-answer is basically fine. It’s also identical to the answer Leonhardt suggests they give instead.
(Short thread) https://twitter.com/dleonhardt/status/1314960274798055426
Trump and Republicans desperately want to make this election about something other than COVID.
(Self-plug: I wrote about this for @wired last week) https://www.wired.com/story/the-electoral-politics-of-trumps-diagnosis/
The reason they keep asking “is he gonna pack the court” is because they see a potential reframe.
(Self-plug: I wrote about this for @wired last week) https://www.wired.com/story/the-electoral-politics-of-trumps-diagnosis/
The reason they keep asking “is he gonna pack the court” is because they see a potential reframe.
When Biden says “I’m not going to answer the question because they’re just trying to change the subject” he is 100% correct.
Any answer will get stripped of context and nuance and played on a loop. That’s the whole purpose of pursuing an answer.
Any answer will get stripped of context and nuance and played on a loop. That’s the whole purpose of pursuing an answer.
Saying “well that’s up to Congress” or “we’ll have to wait and see” won’t end the matter.
Republicans want a hard denial that they can hang around his head during a potential Biden administration, or they want to run on the lack of a hard denial.
Republicans want a hard denial that they can hang around his head during a potential Biden administration, or they want to run on the lack of a hard denial.
Saying “but Merrick Garland!” lets Republicans insist that this election is about stopping The Left from destroying the courts out of a politics of retribution.
Which, in turn, would provide legs to this narrative and turn it into an ongoing narrative.
Which, in turn, would provide legs to this narrative and turn it into an ongoing narrative.
Saying “sure, we won’t expand the court” is a problem because it is extremely likely that a Biden administration will have to, at a minimum, credibly threaten to expand the court. (I think they’re gonna have to actually do it, and also that they should fwiw.)
So the strategic goal here is to provide no soundbytes for the Rs, put the focus back on COVID, and let Trump’s intemperate self-immolation eventually replace it in the news cycle.
That’s... pretty much exactly what they’re doing.
That’s... pretty much exactly what they’re doing.
The only downside is that it’ll annoy reporters like Leonhardt. They like crisp, definitive answers, and they like doggedly pursuing those answers when candidates don’t give them.
That’s fine. You accept that downside is a campaign. The reporters will get over it.
That’s fine. You accept that downside is a campaign. The reporters will get over it.
Sometimes the non-answer is the most strategic answer.
Sometimes the comms plan that pisses off reporters is the best comms plan.
The Biden campaign is handling this fine. They shouldn’t change a thing.
(Fin)
Sometimes the comms plan that pisses off reporters is the best comms plan.
The Biden campaign is handling this fine. They shouldn’t change a thing.
(Fin)
