I maintain the Harris campaign did well for the most part with a tough hand, but I do think the points above are all pretty solid. While Harris did try to stick to simple slogans "Forward" . ."Won't Go Back" "When We Fight We Win" . . they're so opaque as to not really drive enthusiasm, especially for a quasi-incumbent. But the question then becomes . . what was the alternative? I don't think there were many good options.
And her ads were indeed all over the place in terms of message-focus. Now, from one vantage point that's smart targeting, but from another it's a muddled, uncentered campaign.
Who said they were lucky? They assumed there would be an expanded persuasion universe and maybe were right. But treating guys like Fabrizio as some sort of genius is just laughable.
I think brushing off Trumps campaigns at this point as "lucky" is the absolute wrong takeaway. Especially this last one.
Point is they were seeing things the Harris campaign did not and were running a very different type of media game that was, ultimately, effective.
That is the takeaway.
I maintain the Harris campaign did well for the most part with a tough hand, but I do think the points above are all pretty solid. While Harris did try to stick to simple slogans "Forward" . ."Won't Go Back" "When We Fight We Win" . . they're so opaque as to not really drive enthusiasm, especially for a quasi-incumbent. But the question then becomes . . what was the alternative? I don't think there were many good options.
And her ads were indeed all over the place in terms of message-focus. Now, from one vantage point that's smart targeting, but from another it's a muddled, uncentered campaign.
It wasn't perfect but it wasn't bad. She had a weak hand to play.
Who said they were lucky? They assumed there would be an expanded persuasion universe and maybe were right. But treating guys like Fabrizio as some sort of genius is just laughable.